Doug Schepers wrote:
> Hi, Ian-
>
> Ian Hickson wrote (on 3/23/09 11:16 PM):
>>
>>> This issue seems to come down to a matter of preference. The SVG WG
>>> sees disadvantages in such whitelisting, and doesn't see value in it.
>>> Modulo some technical reason, we still oppose the inclusion of
>>> whitelists, and ask instead that wording similar to what we've proposed
>>> be used to solve the issue. [1][2]
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/proposals/svg-html/html5-mod.html#svg-attribute-name
>>>
>>> [2]
>>> http://dev.w3.org/SVG/proposals/svg-html/html5-mod.html#svg-element-name
>>
>> Woah, how are we supposed to reason about what the parser requires if we
>> don't actually list the tags explicitly? It seems dangerous to not make
>> the list explicit. I'd be far more concerned about us accidentally
>> introducing tags that we didn't intend to introduce if we didn't have to
>> make sure we kept a list up to date.
>>
>> This also moves the burden of listing the tag names from us to the
>> implementors, which would inevitably be a source of bugs.
>
> Who said it shouldn't be an explicit list? You think the explicit list
> should be in the HTML 5 spec, which risks getting out of sync with the
> SVG spec, and the SVG WG thinks that the explicit list should be in the
> SVG specs, where the elements and attributes are actually defined.
>
> Where would the confusion and bugs come in?
We aren't at Last Call just yet, so for now can we provisionally put
this list in both documents? I simply hoping that we can deal with the
substantive issues first, and defer briefly the organizational and
editorial issues.
Deal?
> Regards-
> -Doug Schepers
> W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
- Sam Ruby